A civil servant subject to disciplinary proceedings found in his personnel file a copy of an e-mail he had sent to a friend and colleague in the IT department of the same organization. He filed a criminal claim for violation of the duty of secrecy of private correspondence. The message content was half professional-half personal, but the message title did not indicate any personal content.
The court of first instance ruled that in order to determine whether an e-mail is personal, one must look not only at the purpose of the e-mail, but also at the intention of the interested parties. In this matter, the IT employee had sent to several people an e-mail under the title "budget." The civil servant did not use the "reply to all" function, rather, replied only to the sender, splitting his answer in two parts: one personal and one professional. The management obtained the e-mail by applying pressure on the IT employee, who was reluctant to provide it. All these elements showed that this e-mail was intended to be a private e-mail, which should not have been accessed by the management. The court held that the secrecy of correspondence had been violated.


If you want to comment on this post, you need to login